Queen’s Speech

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I want to return to one of the most important decisions that we face in the near future about the future of Britain as a whole. It is the question of whether we should hold a new referendum. I want to stress how strong the arguments are in favour of doing so.

Brexiteers say that we are ignoring the people’s will but they seem to assume that the people’s will is the same now as it was in 2016—or will be by the time we hold a referendum. Since 2016, a lot of older people—who mainly voted leave—have died, and there will be a lot of new, young voters who will, on present evidence, mainly vote remain. Leaving aside those demographics, what matters is that we now know much more about what Brexit actually means. There have been a number of forecasts by independent bodies such as the IFS and by experts asked by the Government to assess what the future holds. These have produced strong evidence that we will be much poorer, especially after a no-deal Brexit.

I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, says that experts are often wrong. I have a certain bias in favour of the IFS because I was its first director. I am proud of the fact that I nursed it in its early days and acted as midwife to the infant which has now grown into a formidable adult. However, there are other cases where people make forecasts and the evidence begins to support it; we should then take note of it. I differ profoundly from the noble Viscount, who is a sceptic about climate change. There is now plenty of evidence that climate change should be taken enormously seriously.

[Viscount Ridley]

I draw attention to the fact that I regard the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, as a mentor, friend and ally on the issue of genetically modified crops, on which we have both said exactly the same thing.

[Lord Taverne]

I quite agree. I have great admiration for the noble Viscount as a scientist; he has written some excellent books about science.

The evidence produced by the IFS and many others—that the future we face from a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous and that, in any event, Brexit means we would be much poorer—is dismissed by Brexiteers because any evidence that contradicts their beliefs is dismissed as more of Project Fear. Even if one disregards the forecasts of economists, it is hard to completely ignore the predictions of employers such as the car manufacturers, Airbus, the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical companies and massive numbers of small, and many large, service companies, that if there is Brexit they will move production from the United Kingdom. There are already signs of this. Many businesses have already incurred losses and face enormous costs because of the very prospect of Brexit.

Why do we also assume that most leavers just want out, and why do we pay so much attention to those who shout the loudest? People give very different reasons why they voted leave, and poll evidence is scarce. However, one significant poll of a massive sample was carried out by YouGov on the eve of the referendum. It found that one view was almost universally shared by leave voters: they saw no downside to Brexit. They nearly all believed that, once we had cast off the shackles of Brussels, we would emerge into the sunny uplands. I fear that the evidence from business is beginning to prove that the more gloomy forecasts are likely to be right. I believe that the forecast that we will be a poorer nation will influence a vital group of leave voters to change their minds.

That raises the question of whether a new referendum should precede a general election. This must surely be a no-brainer, especially for the Labour Party. The choice in the referendum this time must be a clear one; not like saying, “Brexit means Brexit”. There may be some problems about the exact wording, but the obvious choice must be between Boris Johnson’s deal, if there is one—or a no-deal Brexit if there is not—and remain. How can this be clearly decided in a general election? Voters vote for different parties for a great variety of reasons; for some, Brexit may not be one of them at all. I remember the 1974 election, at the time of the three-day week and the miners’ strike. Heath said it would be about who governs Britain. It was, for a few days. Then people returned to the usual issues: the cost of living, jobs, and the NHS. In no way will, or can, a general election solve the Brexit problem. Indeed, in so far as it does feature, Labour may well suffer greatly if, as seems likely, its stance on Brexit is still uncertain. We seem to be moving towards a new referendum. It must precede, and not just be part of, the coming general election.

Brexit: Sanctions Policy (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues who are experts in this subject are away today door-knocking. I was not a member of the Lords committee, but I did read its very valuable recommendations and the subsequent debates, and I will do my best as a last-minute substitute. As often in the role of substitute, it will be very brief.

Everyone agrees that sanctions are most effective when they are applied on a multilateral basis. As EU members, and participating in the common foreign and security policy, the UK has played an important part, particularly in driving sanctions against Russia and Iran. If we leave the European Union, will the Government continue their participation in the CFSP? Even outside EU institutions, we would not be without some influence. For example, we did rally the rest of the European Union to support sanctions after the Salisbury incident. It is obviously in both our and the EU’s interest to co-operate closely. Nevertheless, if we leave, our influence is almost bound to decline, and the Lords committee seemed to fear that this may be so, as do many outside experts, in the RUSI and the LSE for instance.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, pointed out, EU regimes account for about three-quarters of the sanctions that the UK currently implements. Boris Johnson, ever ready to exercise and declare his diplomatic skills, has argued that, outside the European Union, we will have more flexibility in our policy on sanctions and will no longer have to wait for the European Union to reach a consensus. In his perpetual search for ways of going it alone in splendid isolation, he seems unaware that the impact of 28 states jointly bringing their economic weight to bear on the targeted entities is likely to be rather more effective than the UK acting alone.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, in his excellent contribution, all of which I agree with, if we leave the EU—that is not the phrase that the noble Baroness used—we might still wish to follow EU sanctions. Joint action would not only be more effective but—an important point—would protect British business suffering from the economic harm of acting alone. However, we would have no say in the design of such sanctions. There are often clear divisions between member states, and we would no longer be able to influence the resolution of disagreements in a way favourable to our interests. Furthermore, it is not only exclusion from the decisions of EU institutions that would deprive us of influence but also the absence of informal contacts at marginal meetings, which can be invaluable for finding out what proposals may be acceptable. That has not always been the case for the proposals put forward by our EU negotiators.

Sanctions are yet a further example of what Brexit would mean: losing control rather than taking it back.